Freddie confirms Queen are not Queen if four members are not there

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Respect for the pride of the band, because Queen have trashed themselves now and have no respect for leaving the bands memory the way it was, instead Queen have now opened a new chapter which has achieved absolutely nothing apart from make them a lot of money singing there hits with a reality nobody, where is the sense in that? They have not recorded any new music since Paul Rodgers was with them and that speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]

Contrary to your strange view of the world they don't actually owe you any new music and they really don't need permission to go out and enjoy themselves playing the music they helped to create in the first place. Just because they formed a band years ago doesn't mean they have to be beholden to people for every single thing they do in life and every decision they make. They're having fun, the fans at the shows are having fun, they're at an age where a lot of people have already retired, whatever they choose to do now should be done for enjoyment, they've paid their dues long since IMO. How would you like people expecting you to continue working at something you didn't want to do when you get to 70?

^ but he likes trolling - and he does it for free! He'll be doing it well into his 70's, I bet....

[QUOTE] [b]rockchic65 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Respect for the pride of the band, because Queen have trashed themselves now and have no respect for leaving the bands memory the way it was, instead Queen have now opened a new chapter which has achieved absolutely nothing apart from make them a lot of money singing there hits with a reality nobody, where is the sense in that? They have not recorded any new music since Paul Rodgers was with them and that speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]

Contrary to your strange view of the world they don't actually owe you any new music and they really don't need permission to go out and enjoy themselves playing the music they helped to create in the first place. Just because they formed a band years ago doesn't mean they have to be beholden to people for every single thing they do in life and every decision they make. They're having fun, the fans at the shows are having fun, they're at an age where a lot of people have already retired, whatever they choose to do now should be done for enjoyment, they've paid their dues long since IMO. How would you like people expecting you to continue working at something you didn't want to do when you get to 70?

[/QUOTE]

This! As I said before, they are musicians and they enjoy playing music. That's what they do. They have a fantastic catalogue of songs to play and people are enjoying hearing them play them. They are getting on and it could all end tomorrow so why the fuck can't they do what they want? Fair enough not everyone likes it, that's for everyone's own opinions. It will never be the same without Freddie & John but so many of new generations have discovered their music and Queen is as popular as ever. Good on them I say and whilst they are enjoying the ride I hope it keeps going.

And in my own opinion, I don't want any new music from them with Adam Lambert. They shouldn't of done an album with Paul Rodgers. A couple of good tracks but mostly shit. Leave the Queen catalogue as it is. I'd like to see them do some more solo stuff or Brian & Roger together, but not under the Queen name.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Goodco The Beatles split up yeah, and there was no attempt to replace Paul they just split up. No ridiculous replacements for Paul they gracefully spilt and Queen should have done the same.[/QUOTE]

THEY SPLIT UP. They had enough, they went as far as they could as a band.

One of the main song writers left. They hadn't toured for years, because they made a decision not to.

No one left Queen. They didn't split up. Freddie died, John retired after doing a number of Queen related things in the 90's, he didn't leave to go and work with another band or make solo albums.

Comparing The Beatles situation with what happened with Queen further shows your lack of knowledge and understanding.

They're not disrespecting 'the pride of the band'. They're - presumably - proud of what they're doing: performing good music to large audiences around the world, making thousands of people happy (including themselves). That's something to be proud of.

Just because they're not doing exactly what some random person (myself included) would like them to do, it doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or dishonest, etc.

They can make good music but just do not call it Queen because its not. Queen no longer exists as a complete band.
Would you still call The Beatles by that name if Ringo starr wanted three new people to take the place of George Paul & John?
There would be hell on by Beatles fans guaranteed.

If The who did it without Moon...Queen could do it, and have done it. No one compares with The Beatles...I rather compare Bands like Sabbath and The Who/ACDC with Queen...All have went on with different musicians when their Iconic member left or died. It's really pretty common for bands to do this.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

They can make good music but just do not call it Queen because its not.[/QUOTE]

They can call themselves whatever they want, and they do. They don't need your permission.,, or mine, or anyone else's.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Queen no longer exists as a complete band.[/QUOTE]

So?

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Would you still call The Beatles by that name if Ringo starr wanted three new people to take the place of George Paul & John?
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't, but my opinion's completely irrelevant there. If Ringo, or Paul, or anybody else for that matter, wanted to tour or record as The Beatles, it's their choice, not mine. It doesn't matter whether I would call them that or not, what matters is whether or not *they* would choose that moniker.

@Mr Right - You didn't answer my question in regards to your ELO comment. Do you think Jeff Lynne should be touring as ELO even though he's the only original member left? No Roy Wood or Bev Bevan & Richard Tandy is not playing with him anymore. Not to mention the other classical players that rotated through the band. Kelly Groucutt was a major part of the ELO vocal sound throughout the 70's and 80's but unfortunately no longer with us.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

More rants about how Queen aren't Queen now..........

[/QUOTE]

Give your face a fucking rest. Every time you make a point, you dig a deeper hole for yourself. The people here always have a decent argument for any tripe you spew, you're way out of your depth.

THISTLE First of all you can go and fuck off, i do not need your rants on my thread.
Secondly yous lot like to sample second class music with a fake singer well that is your look out but i prefer my Queen with Freddie on vocals and John on bass.
i am not one of the sheep who takes a rubbish fake american idol to play god in Freddie's shoes. You are all weak and to forgiving of a band that is limp and watered down.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

i prefer my Queen with Freddie on vocals and John on bass.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem: Queen does not belong to you. It's not 'your' Queen. Never has been. Never will be. Your opinions (and mine, and most people's) are moot when it comes to what they should be calling themselves or who should be singing lead.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

fake american idol[/QUOTE]

Adam is not a fake American Idol. Adam was born in Indianapolis, which is in America (i.e. he's American). He's idolised by thousands of people (i.e. he's an idol). So there: he's both an American and an idol, therefore he is an American idol. A bona fide one, not a fake one.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

to play god.[/QUOTE]

Adam's not playing god because Adam is real, not imaginary.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

in Freddie's shoes.[/QUOTE]

I think Adam's much taller than Frederick was, so he probably wears different shoe sizes. And even if they actually wore the same size of footwear, I think Adam's got enough money to buy his own shoes rather than wearing those of someone who's been long dead.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

You are all weak and to forgiving of a band that is limp and watered down.[/QUOTE]

Then why are you here?

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

THISTLE First of all you can go and fuck off, i do not need your rants on my thread.l

. . . . . . i prefer my Queen with Freddie on vocals and John on bass. . . . . .[/QUOTE]

Great educated and mature opening line there, it echoes what we expect from Gerryhappyright.

Now the line about preferring (your) Queen with Freddie on vocals etc. What about everything they recorded without him singing or they songs John didn't play on? Seems you like the band less and less day by day

I like Queen as an original four piece band and seems these days they are getting more unoriginal by the minute.
I love all the solo stuff sure but i do not like the band when they bring in somebody who does not have a great music pedigree, that is just insulting there own craft big time.

We get it. So, why are you a Russian troll posting on an English forum, as so many are doing from your country to my country across the pond?

Do you obsess every single frickin' minute about Adam? Do you masturbate to him, and get upset when he doesn't answer your idiotic questions? Why do you listen to him if he upsets you so much?

I don't like country music or bluegrass, but do you see me post anything related to them here?

Why do Richard and YV allow you and r70 to continually poison this forum? I'll bet if I called one of them ONE of the names you two use towards respected members of this board, that I would be banned for life.

I would lower myself and use your 4th grade language towards you, but I just can't put that stupid into my brain.

btw...yet again, how in the hell would Ringo have carried on 'The Beatles'? It wasn't his band. It wasn't George's. And, FYI, the Allies won WWII. Just want to make sure you know obvious history.

As always, carry on.